4601 Ainsworth Circle

Grapevine, Texas 76051

October 20, 1990

Harold Weisberg

7527 Old Receiver Road

Frederick, MD. 21702

Harold;

First, Mary Ferrell is back to work and feeling much better.

It appears she had some sort of kidney infection and it was rough

going for a while (about a month, in fact).

I created a "little folder" on the mysterious fire in which

Roscoe White died. Ricky claimed his father was murdered because

he wouldn't take on one last assignment. The record shows this

not to be the case.

On the right hand side is Geneva White vs. Arrow Chemical

and on the left, Richard Adair vs. Arrow Chemical. If you review

these documents they confirm that it was an industrial accident.

Both Adair and Roscoe's family collected compensation under Texas

law. The insurance company, F&C, one of the compznies I work for,

instituted subrogation proceedings in both cases to recover sums

they expended under the compensation act. The initial pleadings

in both cases describe the accident in pretty similar terms.

Additionally, I interviewed 10 people who dealt in one way

or another with the fire, including Adair himself. i.e. fellow

employees, fire personal, police and family freinds. They all

agree it's baloney and Ricky is out for a buck.

More to come,

Dave Perry

Ho said White's story was rejected and that .public discussion of the movie project is premature and sub-

! ject to change. I The Texas attorney general's of-t flee has confirmed it is reviewing'

White's allegations, but spokesman I Hon -Duo& said. "2he more we look

at it, the bat credibility these people. have."

TWa week; Joe H. West, a Houston . private investigator, said document experts found that the alleged CIA cables are fraudulent

West had worked alongside Matsu CorpL of Uftlland, created to profit' from the allegations, and the assassi-

• nation tenter before an apparent falling-out Matsu recently sued West in a Hesston state court alleg-

; *Ile has unlawful poasessionof the • canister and lb contents. . .. •

The court-blued a tem re- straining : order ' prohibiting est frays destroying or. removing the canister from a. Houston safety de-

,' posit box. - • Gary ft Baily president of Matsu,

. a group of Midland area oil and gas • investors, said West has been found

"to lie" and "we know it (the evi-' deice in the canister) is authentic."

i Although - Stone has met with ..', White, Ho emphasized that the con-

tract has nothing to do with White's I allegations.

LarTgirrar* a alba JFK center hi Dallas, would not comment about. the contract..

The for-profit iFIC center abo conducts tours of the assassination area and shows documentaries and other exhibit materiaL

The center, in Dallas' West End' Historical District, recently pres-ented evidence supposedly linking late Dallas police officer Roscoe White with a Central Intelligence Agency plot to kill Kennedy. .

The allegations were based on a • canister, -allegedly containing CIA

cables and found by White's son, Ricky Don White of Midland, who

-- said he believes his father was one of three gunmen who fired at Kennedy.

By JERRY URBAN Houston Chronicle

A film producer who has worked with Academy Award-winning di-rector Oliver Stone has entered Into a working agreement with a Dallas group for a proposed movie about the assassination of John F. Ken-nedy.

Alex Kitman Ho. has a contract with the JFK Assassination Informa-tion Center, which collect& informa-tion about U.S. government Conspir-acy and cover-up theories surround-ing the assassination.

Ho has produced several Stone films, including Platoon, Horn on the Fourth of July and the upcoming The Doors. 7.!

Contacted in Hong Kong, where he was with Stone, Ho confirmed an. agreement but would not elaborate.

He did say, "Oliver, is not necessar-ily involved in this project. That has not been decided yet;

Gary Mack a Kennedy. kisasshia- • tiortresearcheebt Fort Wirth; -Wt.

. he hasa coqistadraft contract and - that the Ji. iCAinter is to reve sek000 for consulting on a movie

•about .the ;Nci!;:. _'aqa.Asklat :

Mack said S fueled specula- .; tion a film was in the works when he

was seedin Dallas recentlscouting - the assassination area.

Stone was unavaitablefor com-ment, but a spokeinnomai referred the Chronicle to HO:

Friday, Oct. 12,1990 Houston Chro[licio lrirk 2,40

ovie ae in works on JFK killing Producer enlists Dallas group's aid

z c7._0-13- 4 1

F ! ED NO.

RICHARD NEAL ADAIRMA/i7 II 35 Ati IN THE OR M.JUDICIAL

VS. DISTRICT COURT OF

ARROW CHEMICAL CORPORATIdiiiV, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

COMES NOW Richard Neal Adair, hereafter called Plaintiff,

complaining of Arrow Chemical Corporation, hereafter called

Defendant, and for cause of action would show the Court and

jury as follows:

I.

Plaintiff is a resident of Dallas, Dallas County, Texas,

and the Defendant Corporation, Arrow Chemical Corporation is

a Texas Corporation doing business in Texas at 2611 South

Central Expressway in Dallas, where service of citation may-

be had. Its registered agent for service is Morris Schwiff,

208 North Peak Street, Dallas, Texas.

II.

On or about the 23rd day of September 1971, Plaintiff

was an employee of M & M Equipment and Tool Rental, Inc.,

located at 10625 Ferguson Road in Dallas, Dallas County,

Texas, where he was employed as a machinest and welder and metal

worker.

On September 23, 1971, at the shop maintained by M & M

Equipment and Tool Rental, Inc., the Plaintiff -was helping

Roscoe A. White, another employee of M & M Equipment and Tool

Rental, Inc., to weld a piece of metal by holding the piece of

metal while White did the actual welding. They were working

on a metal table which had been constructed for that purpose

and under this metal table was stored a can of liquid clean-

ing compound known as PC-68, which liquid cleaner is manufac-

tured, processed and sold by the Defendant Arrow Chemical

Plaintiff's Original Petition - Page 1

Corporation for the purpose of cleaning concrete off of concrete

mixing equipment, among other uses.

III.

The Plaintiff would show that the Defendant manufactured,

proCessed and sold the cleaning chemical in liquid form, called

PC-68, which chemical is sold in metal containers of various

sizes and is labeled "Arrow Chemical Company PC-68" but such

label contains no other language; that the liquid chemical was,

in fact, a substance which is highly volatile and inflammable

and explosive in nature and that while the Plaintiff and Roscoe

A. White were welding the piece of metal on the table with

the can of PC-68 stored underneath, the cleaning compound

suddenly exploded and caught fire and engulfing both men

in flames and inflicting on both men severe burns which

ultimately caused the death of Roscoe A. White and inflicted

third degree burns to the Plaintiff which will be described

hereafter.

IV.

The Defendant offered the above described product for

sale to the general public and knew that such cleaning

compound would be purchased by the general public, including

Richard Neal Adair. As the marketer of this product, this

Defendant impliedly warranted to M & M Equipment and Tool

Rental, Inc., and Richard Neal Adair, the ultimate purchaser

and user thereof, that the cleaning compound was of merchant-

able quality, safe, and fit for the purpose for which it

was used and was free of defect and danger to them. That

this Defendant knew that a company such as M & M Equipment

and Tool Rental, Inc., and those working for the company

on that date, would rely on such implied warranty of

merchantability in purchasing the same for use by its employees.

In truth and in fact, the cleaning compound was not fit for

the use and the purpose intended, because its ingredients

and the vapors from same were so highly volatile and

Plaintiff's Original Petition - Page 2

inflammable that when stored in the manner and the purpose

' intended by the manufacturer, and in proximity to welding

equipment, they explored and ignited causing the death of

Roscoe A. White and the injuries of Richard Neal Adair. By

virtue of the cleaning compound being defective, this

Defendant breached its implied warranty of fitness and

quality to Richard Neal Adair and he is entitled to recover

from the Defendant for the breach of such warranty under

Section 2-314 of the Uniform Commercial Code. Such breach

of implied warranty was the producing cause of the injuries

and damages as will be described.

V.

Plaintiff would further show that the Defendant should

be held strictly liable in accordance with the provisions of.

the Restatement of Torts, because its product complained of

herein when sold was unreasonably dangerous, rendering it

defective. In this connection, Plaintiff would show that when

the container of the product was open, vapors of the product

escaped which were highly volatile, inflammable, and easily

susceptible to ignition. That the characteristics of the

product and its vapors were highly volatile, inflammable and

explosive due to the ingredients used in the manufacture of

said product rendering it unreasonably dangerous for ordinary

use. That it was unreasonably dangerous to an extent beyond

that which would be contemplated by the ordinary user with the

knowledge available to him as to the characteristics of the

product and was therefor defective and such defective condition

was the producing cause of the injuries and damages alleged.

That it contains benzene or petroleum distilate; that the

Defendant failed to mark the container containing same in

accordance with the regulations of the U.S. Interstate

Commerce Commission and in violation of Article 1102 of the

Texas Penal Code and such breach of the Statute renders the

product unreasonably dangerous under Texas Law and was a

producing cause of the injuries and damages herein set forth.

Plaintiff's Original Petition - Page 3

•

VI.

Plaintiff should further recover against Defendant

because the facts alleged in Paragraphs IV. and V. were

.known or should have been known to Defendant when the

product was placed on the open market for sale; and

further, it was known by this Seller that it would be

used by people in the general public, wihout inspection

for defects, who did not have such knowledge, such as

Richard Neal Adair. That said seller is required by law to

test its product and provide an adequate warning of

any dangerous propensity of an article produced or sold

by it inherent in the product or its use, of which it

knows or should know, and which the user of the product

would not ordinarily 'discover. That Defendant failed to

test or adequately label its product in a manner so as

to warn the user and, in particular Richard Neal Adair of its

highly volatile, explosive and inflammable vapors which

escaped from the container and exploded on the occasion

in question when the product was being used for the purpose

intended. Further, in addition to an adequate warning

needing to be placed on the label of Defendant's product

due to its dangerous propensities, Defendant should have

further required any wholesaler or retailer of the product

to personally warn any purchaser, including Richard Neal Adair,

of the extremely dangerous conditions encountered when using

same. That Defendant's failures in this connection were

a producing cause of the injuries and damages herein alleged.

VII.

Plaintiff would further show that the Defendant•

intentionally marketed its product to the general public

and Richard Neal Adair when it had knowledge or should have

had knowledge of its products' highly volatile, inflammable

and explosive vapors. In spite of said kncwlwedge, it failed

Plaintiff's Original Petition - Page 4

)

to use ordinary care in the following particulars: (1) Defendant

failed to adequately test its product; (2) Defendant failed to

chemically reduce the volatility, inflammability and

expltsiveness of said product and its vapors; (3) Defendant

failed to adequately warn on its label the dangers encountered

when using the product.

Each of the foregoing acts and/or omissions, whether

taken singely or collectively, were not only negligent,

but raised the belief that Defendant was consciously

indifferent to the rights, welfare and safety of the con-

sumer public who might be affected by such conduct,

including Richard Neal Adair, and such conduct amounts to

gross negligence, heedlessness and recklessness, under

the circumstances, and such was the proximate cause of

the injuries and damages herein alleged, and Defendant

should therefore be assessed additional punitive damages .

in the sum of $250,000.00.

VIII.

As a result of the injuries inflicted by the

explosion of the PC-68, Richard Neal Adair was confined in

the burn center at Parkland Hospital for approximately

two and one-half months where he was attended by Dr.

Charles Baxter. The charges at Parkland Hospital

were $7,409.19 and Dr. Baxter's charge was $1,050.00,

which sums were reasonable at the time and necessary

for the treatment of the Plaintiff. In addition,

Dr. Morris Fogelman has treated the Plaintiff since the

accident and his bill is $50.00 and Richard Neal Adair has

spent approximately $60.29 for drugs. These expenditures

comprise a total amount of $8,569.48 representing medical

bills which have been incurred as a result of the injuries

to the Plaintiff and for which sums he hereby sues.

Plaintiff's Original Petition - Page 5

The Plaintiff will continue to suffer from the effects

'of his injuries for the rest of his natural life and will have

to wear support stockings, take medications and see a doctor

on a periodic basis for the rashes and skin lesions which

occured to the grafted portions of his body and that

future medical expense will amount to the sum of

$1500.00, for which sum he hereby sues.

In addition, the Plaintiff, who suffered third

degree burns from approximately the area of his waist

to the soles of his feet and had to have multiple skin

grafts while at .Parkland Hospital Burn Center, suffered

excruciating physical pain and mental suffering.

For the physical pain and mental suffering Plaintiff

has sustained in the past he should be compensated in the sum

of $250,000.00; and, he will continue to have pain, suffering

and mental anguish in the future for the remainder of his

natural life as a direct result of Defendant's defective

product, resulting in the occurrence of September 23, 1971,

to Richard Neal Adair's further damage in the sum of

$30,000.00.

IX.

Prior to September 23, 1971 Richard Neal Adair had

an earning capacity of approximately $8,600.00 per year and

would have been able to continue a full employment as long

as he was able and wanted to work but that by virtue of

the injury he was totally disabled until August 1, 1972

and lost wages in the amount of $7,470.00 for which sum

he hereby sues. Also his earning capacity has been reduced

because of his injuries by at least 50%, his life expectancy,

according to the mortality tables located in Vernon's

Annotated Civil Statutes, is 14 years and so he has been

further damaged in the sum of $61,000.00.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Plaintiff prays

that the Defendant be cited to appear and answer herein,

that upon final hearing he do have and recover judgment

against the Defendant in the amount of damages hereinbefore

Plaintiff's Original Petition - Page 6

alleged, and for such other and further relief, general and

special to which he may show himself entitled to receive.

Respectfully submitted,

/ T-

AMillk4r.416 mrIr

IC n SEBASTIAN 2005 Ad. .hus Tower Dallas, Texas 75202

411 • 4 I

Plaintiff's Original Petition — Page 7

FILED JUL z at

111,1. SRA lir irrr. • 1241 ca

CAUSE NO. 74-4179-C

RICHARD gEAL ADAIR § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF

VS. § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

ARROW CHEMICAL CORPORATION § 68TE JUDICIAL DISTRICT

MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO S171767===-77.1"ENDANT

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

Now comes ARROW CHEMICAL CORPORATION, original Defendant

in the above cause and seeks leave to make CHEMSCOPE CORPORATION

a Third Party Defendant.

WHEREFORE, Defendant, ARROW CHEMICAL CORPORATION

prays that it be granted leave of Court to make CHEMSCOPE CORPORA-

TION a Third Party Defendant.

Respectfully submitted

7700 Carpenter Freeway Dallas, Texas 75247 Phone: (2l.) 658-8830

TONY DIRKSMEYER and CHARLES WAYS Attorneys for Defendant

A copy of the foregoing Motion has been mailed to

Mike Sebastian, 2005 Adolphus Tower, Dallas, Texas 75202,

attorney of record for Plaintiff.

•-•

JUL 12_2y4

CAUSE NO. 74-4179-C

RICHARD NEAL ADAIR

VS.

IN THE DI TRICT COURT OF

DALLAS CG . , ARROW CHEMICAL CORPORATION § 68TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

THIRD PARTY PETITION

TO THE HONORABLE jUDGE OF SAID COURT:

Now comes ARROW CHEMICAL CORPORATION, Defendant in

the above cause, hereinafter referred to as Third Party Plaintiff,

complaining of CHEMSCOPE CORPORATION, hereinafter referred to

as Third Party Defendant, and having first obtained leave of

Court to file this Third Party Petition, would respectfully

show as follows:

*1

I. Suit has heretofore been filed wherein RICHARD NEAL

ADAIR in the Plaintiff and ARROW CHEMICAL CORPORATION is the

Defendant, all of which is more'fully'set out in Plaintiff's

Original Petition which is attached hereto, and marked Exhibit

"A".

II.

CHEMSCOPE CORPORATION is a Texas Corporation authorized

to do business in the State of Texas and service can be had by

serving an officer of CHEMSCOPE CORPORATION at its principal

place of business, 1909 Highline Drive, Dallas, Texas.

III.

Your Third Party Plaintiff, ARROW CHEMICAL CORPORATION

would show that the particular compound involved in this case

known as PC-68 which allegedly exploded and caught fire, allegedly

causing the injuries to the Plaintiff, RICHARD NEAL ADAIR, was

manufactured and sold by Third Party Defendant, CHEMSCOPE

CORPORATION to Third Party Plaintiff, ARROW CHEMICAL CORPORA-

TION, who in turn sold the product to M & M Equipment & Tool

Rental, Inc.

IV.

This Third Party Defendant, ARROW CHEMICAL CORPORATION,

denies that it is liable to the Plaintiff in this instance,

and denies that the PC-68 was unreasonably dangerous or defective

and fur7ther. this Third Party Plaintiff denies that it was

negligent in any manner nor did it breach any implied warranty

which would make it liable to the Plaintiff. However, this

Third Party Plaintiff says that Third Party Defendant, CHEMSCOPE

CORPORATION, had manufactured the PC-68 involved and sold it

. to this Third Party Plaintiff and that if the PC-68 was volatile

inflammable, or unreasonably dangerous CHEMSCOPE CORPORATION

should have known of that fact, and should have warned or

informed this Third Party Plaintiff of such dangerous or

inflammable or volatile attributes.

V.

That should this Third Party Plaintiff, ARROW

CHEMICAL CORPORATION be'found liable to the Plaintiff, RICHARD

NEAL ADAIR then this Third Party Plaintiff should be entitled

to full indemnity and/or contribution from the Third Party

Defendant, CHEMSCOPE CORPORATION, since it manufactured and

sold the PC-68 in question to ARROW CHEMICAL CORPORATION and

did not warn or inform ARROW CHEMICAL CORPORATION what the

flash point of the product was nor did it warn or inform

ARROW CHEMICAL CORPORATION that the product was flammable,

volatile, or dangerous or that it should be kept away from an

open flame and that if ARROW CHEMICAL CORPORATION is found

liable to the Plaintiff then CHEMSCOPE CORPORATION should be

liable to ARROW CHEMICAL CORPORATION for full indemnity under

the theory of strict liability or negligence.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Third Party Plaintiff

ARROW CHEMICAL CORPORATION prays that upon a final hearing

hereof in the unlikely event the Plaintiff should recover

against ARROW CHEMICAL CORPORATION that ARROW CHEMICAL CORPORA-

TION have judgment for full indemnity and/or contribution

Page 2 - Third Party Petition

against CREMSCOPE CORPORATION, plus such other relief to which

it mighlf be justly entitled in law or equity.

Respectfully submitted

7700 Carpenter Freeway Dallas, Texas 75247 Phone: (214) 638-8830

L.t4.4.A.-pne TONY DiiRKS$EYER and CHARLES WAYS Attorneys For Third P r y Plaintiff and Defendant, Arrow emical Corp.

A copy of the foregoing Third Party Petition has

been mailed to Mike Sebastian, 2005 Adolphus Tower, Dallas,

Texas 75202, attorney of record for Plaintiff.

Page 3 - Third Party Petition

NO. 74-4179-C Auc 29 7 711

X IN THE 68Tgl:JUDIAL X 04i.'''J :i' !.LEAK X DISTR2-ttrTeOURT1 6P4S X " ..-A411 X DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

RICHARD NEAL ADAIR

VS.

ARROW CHEMICAL CORPORATION

THIRD PARTY ORIGINAL ANSWER TO THIRD PARTY PETITION

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT!

Now comes CHEMSCOPE CORPORATION, Third Party

Defendant in the above styled and numbered cause, and files

this, its Third Party Original Answer to Third Party Plain-

tiff's Original Petition, and would respectfully show unto

the Court as follows:

I.

Third Party Defendant denies each and every, all

and singular, the allegations contained in Third Party

Plaintiff's Original Petition, demands strict proof thereof,

and of this puts itself upon the country.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Third Party De-

fendant prays that Third Party Plaintiff take nothing by

its lawsuit, that it be awarded its costs and allowed to

go hence without day.

%..:1-671-1- tar— TOM J. DEAN, Attorney for Third Party

Defendant

726 Lakewood Bank Building P. 0. Box 9717 Dallas, Texas 75214 Phone: 827-1770

On this the 1.t day of August, 1974, a true copy of Third Party DefendaTiTri Original Answer was nailed to Mr. Tony Dirksmeyer and Charles Ways, 7700 Carpenter Freeway, Dallas, Texas 75247, Attorneys for Third Party Plaintiff and a copy of Third Party Defendant's Original Answer was mailed to Mr. Mike Sebastian, 2005 Adolphus Tower, Dallas, Texas 75202, attorney for the Plaintiff.

TOM J. DEAN

jC

3

S4,6 ett*„,,tn-i w

'it'

arrre.,- RICHARD NEAL ADAIR X IN THE 68TH JUDICIAL--

X VS. X DISTRICT COURT OF

X ARROW CHEMICAL CORPORATION X DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

IN T ER R OG A TO R IE S

NO. 74-4179-C

TO: ARROW CHEMICAL CORPORATION and its attorney, Tony Dirksmeyer, 7700 Carpenter Freeway, Dallas, Texas 75247.

Please take notice that you are requested, pursuant to Rule 168 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, to serve on the undersigned within sixteen (16) days after service of this notice, answers in writing in separate paragraphs and under oath to the following Interrogatories:

1. Who manufactures "PC-68"?

2. When did Arrow Chemical Corporation first sell "PC-68"?

3. What special instructions regarding flammability and/or labelling were given Arrow Chemical Corpora-tion by the manufacturer of "PC-68"?

4. Of what chemicals is "PC-68" composed?

5. What is the flash point of "PC-68" as measured by the U. S. official closed cup testing method of the U. S. Bureau of Mines?

6. Is "PC-68" sold outside the State of Texas?

7. What label was first applied by Arrow Chemical Cor-poration to the cans of "PC-68"? Reproduce verbatim or by facsimile all language and pictures contained on each label and specify the size (if labels differ in size, specify each size label for each particular can).

8. Has the original labelling on the cans been changed? If so, list each change and the date.

9. Who printed the first labelling?

10. Has any firm or individual besides answer to number 9 above printed the labelling on "PC-6e? If so, list each such firm or individual and dates.

11. Has any company representative inspected the can in custody of the Fire Marshall? If so, specify who and when.

12. If so, describe the physical description of the can.

13. Was the can clearly marked with the Arrow Chemical Corporation label?

14. Was the can marked with any labelling regarding a warning of flammability? If so, where and what was

INTERROGATORIES - Page 1

the size of the wording?

15. Who are the experts you intend to call as witnesses if trial ensues?

16. State the subject matter to which such witness is expected to testify.

17. Do you have any reports, factual observations and/ or opinions of expert witnesses who will be called if trial ensues? If so, please describe any such and identify by whom such is made.

18. Do you contend that the can made the basis of this suit was labelled with a warning of flammability?

19. Do you contend that the manufacturer did not suffi-ciently warn Arrow Chemical Corporation of the flammable properties of "PC-68"7

20. Do you contend that another liquid besides "PC-68" was in the can?

21. Do you contend that "PC-68" could not be made to flash ignite by exposing the open can to heat and/or flame?

MICHAEL H. SEBASTIAN Attorney far Plaintiff 2005 Adolphus Tower Dallas, Texas 75202 214/742-5771

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this the day of January, 1975, a true and correct copy of the foregoing Interrogatories was mailed by Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, to the Attor-ney of Record for Defendant herein.

MICHAEL H. SEBASTIAN

INTERROGATORIES - Page 2

r

Attorney for Defendant, Third Party Plaintiff

' NO. 74-4179-C

RICHARD-1•NEAL ADAIR

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF

VS. DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

ARROW CHEMICAL CORP. 68TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

MOTION TO DISMISS THIRD=FTEMDMIT

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

Comes now Defendant, ARROW CHEMICAL CORPORATION, and

moves the Court to dismiss Third Party Defendant, CEEMSCOPE

CORPORATION, as Third Party Defendant for the reason that the

Defendant/Third Party Plaintiff, ARROW CHEMICAL CORPORATION,

does not desire to further prosecute its Third Party Action

against CHEMSCpPE CORPORATION.

WHEREFORE, Defendant/Third Party Plaintiff, ARROW

CHEMICAL CORPORATION, prays that its Third Party Action

against.CEEMSCOPE CORPORATION be dismissed without prejudice.

Respectfully submitted

7700 Carpenter Freeway Dallas, Texas 75247 Phone: (214) 638-8830

. LL

NO. 74-4179-C

RICHARD DEAL ADAIR

S

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF

VS. DtLLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

ARROW CHEMICAL CORP. 5

68TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

Dump S ANSITT.X.: TO TIE 77:1171M7177:17intii..7:3

.1. Cheascope, Research Products, The Carroll

00101pany.

2. .1968.

3. In 1969 Arrow Chemical inquired of Research

Products Corporation as to the flammability and combustibility

of the truck coating supplied it by Research Products Corpora-

tion which was sold as PC-68 and was informed by Research

Products Corporation by letter that everything on earth is

combustible in that this simply means the product in question.—

will burn. Research Products Corporation informed Arrow

Chemical Corporation in the letter that the product they manu-

factured which Arrow Chemical sold in 1969 as PC-68 could

be applied anywhere with safety following the same safety

precautions that apply to any paint, varnish or lacqUer as

the flash point of their product was above 80' Fahrenheit.

So far as Arrow Chemical Corporation knows Chemscope nor the

Carroll Company did not give any instructions regarding the

flammability and/or labelling to Arrow Chemical Corporation

concerning the product supplied by Chemscope or the product

supplied by The Carroll Company which Arrow Chemical Corporation

sold as PC-68.

4. Arrow Chemical Corporation does not knoW all

of the chemicals of which PC-68 is composed. This information

Would have to be supplied by one of the manufacturers, although

Arrow Chemical Corporation understands now that ?C-68 does

contain some Xylene, but does not know what other chemicals

it contains.

5. Arrow Chemical Corporation does not have this

information.

6. Yes

7. and S. A label similar to the label thnt 13 now

placed, on the can except the original label was not multi-. color, but was green printing upon white paper. 'crow Glie'elen1

Corporation attaches a label that is presently put on the can.

The wording on the original label was the same so far as anyone

at Lrrow Chemical Corporation can recall. 'grow Chemical

Corporation does not have any of the original labels.

9. Arrow Chemical Company believes the first labelling

was done by Allied Printing.

10. Yes, American Printing and Millett Printing

Company.

11. Yes, William Richardson who was an employee

for Arrow Chemical Corporation. The exact date cannot be

recalled.

12. The can was badly burned. P11 the printing on

the outside of the can was burned and labels were burned off.

It appeared to be a six gallon can that was originally green

before it was discolored by the fire.

13. The word Arrow was faintly visible on the can.

14. The labelling which was placed on the can con-

tained a warning of flammability and also warned against an

open flame. In addition, it was the procedure of Arrow Chemical

Corporation to place a red sticker with the word flommlble

printed in white on the top and side of the can. This sticker

measured 3 inches by 1 inch.

15. This will be left to our attorney. According

to our attorney ho may call Chief Dame and Captain Whitlow of

the Dallas Fire Department.

16. According to our attorney they will testify

as tc what they saw when they investigated the fire an gi‘n

an opinion as to how the fire occurred.

Page Two

C

17. Chief Tuma and Captain Whitlow have been

interv:iswed by our attorney. As to their observations and

osinions, this information can be obtained from Chief Tu.:.:

and Captain Whitlow by the plaintiff, and upon advice of

counsel defendant refuses to answer this Interroaato:y any

further.

18. That is the defendant's contention.

19. Reference is made to defendant's answer to

Interrogatory' No. 3, and whether or not this was sufficient calls for a conclusion or a question of law which the defendant

cannot answer.

20. Defendant does not know whether another liquid

besides PC-88 was in the can or not on September 23, 1971.

Defendant did sell a can of PC-88 to M & M Equipment & Tool

Rental, Inc. about one year prior to September 23, 1971, so

the can could,have possibly contained another liquid besides

PC-66.

21. No.

RespeCtfully submitted

ARROW CHEMICAL CORPORATION

MARX KEAKER, Vice-Preirlent

THE STATE OF TEXAS

COUNTY OF DALLAS

BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, on this day

personally appeared MARK KEN ER, Vice-President of Arrow

Chemical Corporation, who after having been duly sworn stated

under oath that the answers contained above are true and correct

to the best of his knowledae.

LENNI.::t

•Page Three

SWORN TO AVU SUB3CHIM:0 TO BEFORL ML by the said

MARK ELNWL;11 on this the /I:41,day of February, 1975, to certify which witness my hand anC seal of office.

CERTIFICATE I do hereby certify that on this the '7-day of

February, 1975, the original of Defendant's Answers To The Plaintiff's Interrogatories was forwarded to Michael H.

Sebastian, 2005 Adolphus Tower, Dallas, Texas 75202,

Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested.

Notice is hereby given that a true and correct

copy of same was mailed to the Clerk, 68th District Court

of Dallas County, Texas for filing among the papers in this

cause.

.10/Pr DIRKSMEYLR Attorney for Defendant

40.

•

Pau. Four

PC

-es PR

OT

EC

TIV

E C

OA

TIN

G

FE

AT

UR

ES

"T

HE

WE

T L

OO

K"

• '!cave r,osd

ng

is the m

ower 10 b

alks mn

inien

un

te of

— Ls and equipment.

Pro

tective Co

a:ing

pro

vides a lo

ug

h 'cen

sorab

le lam w

hich

preven

ts 'Am

oral," fro

m ad

herin

g w

Ihrks an

d erh

apm

ent

and 1•• ■ nn ....1! amount Thal 0001 S

ikh fa artily hosed off. It is

:Alib

is Arlo

MO

du

cl wh

ich w

ill no

s stratify un

der extrem

e

peracn

a cdn

ditio

ns. S

urfaces h

ealed w

ith P

solacilve

Co

atin

g a

re b

oila

ble

II ad

ditio

nal g

loss is

dash

ed

elle

r

no

sing

oll ce,nrele soleness.

A Inns or P

rotective Coaling on the front of tracks and hailers

will m

ake Ina lem

on

s! of Im

pu

cInd

Maed

a and

road

grim

e

mu

ch ass et an

d faster. O

ne P

eeling

will n

orm

ally last from

a 1 to 13 beak period.

DIR

EC

TIO

NS

Fo

r inilial ap

plicatio

n, clein

vurlad

As S

oft w

ilh A

rm., O

nly

and

CS

.141. Allo

w to

dry. U

se a paw

n @

greyer la ap

,ly

coaling, which w

ill try In 1010 1'0 minutes to si glossy sw

ish.

Th

e 10m w

ill no

t yellow

wish

Mee o

r chan

ge Ills co

las of

the hunk. T

o re

too

l wo

rn a

nu

s. im

ply

cle

an

weh

I mild

an

is/g

en

t

or diluled cautions of Anew

Sole and reapply. N

o lap iilbrke

will show

. R

akes a

pp

lyin

g P

C.R

8 In

an

y re

nte

d R

ota

te b

e

cifirrstn

That th

e pain

! is Ilv,roo

gh

ly tined

end

cop

ed. M

N n

orm

ally

lobes from 4

so 8

wook

s II P

C-S

S is 5P

1,11.11 1116 the paint

le net cured, 11 may possibly bogey and lleke paint

BA

NG

ER

— F

LA

MM

AB

LE

Do

no

n u

se or M

N, Ih

la pro

du

El aro

un

d or n

eer in acm

e

Cam

s. Sto

le Ia a coo

l pip

es.

PC-68 Iffi

AR

RO

W C

HE

MIC

AL C

OR

P.

r ?al I S

. Carm

el Ex•resiray

y Delo

s. Tan

ow

7S2I5

PRO

TECTIVE C

OA

TING

C

AU

TIO

N:

For lo

thasin

ol U

se M

ap O

ut e

l SIA

M

AR

RO

W C

HE

MIC

AL C

OR

P. Zell S

CorA

xel Em

prtetway

Dallis, Tense 7521$

y

OA

LL

AM

• NE

W y

aw

IS

• LO

S A

NC

KL

SI • C

T. L

OU

IS

• CH

1L

AG

O • M

IAN

II•Al_

Aw

rn• O

MA

HA

• ST

. PA

L • L

AS

VIS

OR

S • A

L•L

IP

LIC

RO

IJ• • P

.L.M

IST

O R

ICO

i3 ` CT

•

•-•

•

t

ri.41 kV1' A

e 2_//st

F Ee s: Ipl5

NO. 74-4179-c For(

RICHARD ADAIR, Plaintiff 1 IN THE 68TH JUDICIAL

VS. DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR

ARROW CHEMICAL COMPANY, Defendant' DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

PETITION TO DISMISS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: withdraw

J. HARVEY LEWIS, moves to the Petition for Leave

to Intervene filed herein on behalf of Continental Insurance

Company and respectfully shows that this Petition was filed by him

in error in that Continental Insurance Company was not the workmen's

compensation carrier in this cause but that the workmen's compensation

carrier was FIDELITY & CASUALTY COMPANY OF NEW YORK, which latter

company is subrogated to the rights of the Plaintiff, Richard Adair.

WHEREFORE, J. HARVEY LEWIS, attorney herein who erroneously

filed such Petition on behalf of Continental Insurance Company,'moves

that such petitiontbewithdrawn without prejudice to the rights of

FIDELITY & CASUALTY COMPANY OF NEW YORK on its subrogation right.

Respectfully submitted

J. HARVEY LEWIS, Mistakenly shown as attorney for Continental Insurance Co.

ORDER

The above order having been presented to me and it appearing

that the same should be granted;

IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for leave to intervene

described therein be, and it is hereby withdrawn without prejudice

to any person, firm or corTation involved in this proceeding.

ENTERED this ;27--aay of February, A. D., 1975.

JUDGL

LEWIS & McDONALD, ATTORNEYS AT LAW

J. KAPIVKY 1.ZWes

5TH FLOOR MERCHANTS BANK BUILDING BRED E. McDONALD

DALLAS. TEXAS 75206

PHONE (214) s;t•Ott3

March 10, 1975

Mr. Michael H. Sebastian Attorney at Law 2005 Adolphus Tower Dallas, Texas 75202

Mr. Tony Dirksmeyer Attorney at Law 7700 John W. Carpenter Freeway Dallas. Texas

Re: Richard Adair vs. Arrow Chemical Co., No. 74-4179-c, in the 68th Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas

Gentlemen:

Each of you has previously been handed a copy of the Petition for Leave to Intervene filed on behalf of Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York in the above cause.

This letter is to advise that such Petition has been set for hearing before the Court on March 13, 1975, at 9:00 o'clock a.m.

Sincerely yours,

for LEWIS & McDONALD JHL:eg

cc: Ms. Lillie Allison, Clerk 68th District Court - Dallas County Government Center Dallas, Texas 75202

Mr. Frederick May Underwriters Adjusting Company P. O. Box 960 Dallas, Texas 75221

NO. 74-4179-c

RICHARD ADAI., Plaintiff X IN THE 68th JUDICIAL

VS. I DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR

ARROW CHEMICAL COMPANY, Defendant' DALLAS COUNTY, T E X A S

PETITION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

Now comes FIDELITY & CASUALTY COMPANY OF NEW YORK, a workmen's

compensation insuror authorized to do business within the State of

Texas, with an office in Dallas, Texas, and files this its Petition

for leave to intervene and represents:

1. At the time and on the occasion that the Plaintiff in the

above cause received the injuries of which he complains, the Plaintiff

was working for an employer insured under the Workmen's Compensation

Law of the State of Texas, by Fidelity & Casualty Company of New ;fork.

The injuries received by the Plaintiff and complained of in this cause

were accidental injuries sustained by him while working in the course

and scope of his employment with his employer and as a result thereof,

Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York became obligated to pay to the

Plaintiff certain benefits prescribed by the Texas Workmen's Compensation

Act and pursuant thereto paid to the Plaintiff directly, the amount of

$12,482.00, and paid medical bills for the treatment of Plaintiff's

injuries in the amount of $7,439.19.

2. The Petitioner further shows that the injuries complained

of herein by the Plaintiff, being the same injuries for which workmen's

compensation benefits were paid by Petitioner, is alleged by Plaintiff

- to have been proximately caused by the third party negligence of the

Defendant in this cause, and that pursuant to the provisions of Article

8307, Section 6a, in effect at the time the aforesaid compensation

payments were made to the Defendant or for his account, that the Petitioner

acquired a vested right of subrogation to the rights of the Plaintiff's

cause of action against the Defendant herein, to the extent of the total

amount of such workmen's compensation payments as alleged above, and in

addition thereto, reasonable costs of enforcing such liability.

3. Petitioner shows that on or about December 3, 1971, it

employed J...,Harvey Lewis, an attorney at law, in Dallas, Texas, to

represent it in connection with its subrogation rights, said attorney at

that time being under contract to also represent the Plaintiff in the

' third party action, and that thereafter, on or about January 4, 1972,

the Plaintiff elected to change attorneys purportedly to employ Pat

McClung, likewise an attorney of Dallas, Texas, to represent him.

Petitioner shows that on January 8, 1972, Petitioner's attorney forwarded

to Mr. McClung a release so that attorney McClung could represent

Plaintiff in his cause of action against the Defendant herein and at

that time Petitioner's attorney advised Attorney McClung by letter as

follows:

"I represent the Workmen's Compensation carrier with

regard to subrogated rights, if any, against a negligent third- .--

party and as such will cooperate with you in pursuing a claim

on behalf of Mr. Adair against Arrow Chemical Corporation, if

you desire to do so."

Petitioner's attorney received no response, either oral or

written, from Attorney McClung and in fact was not contacted by the

Plaintiff or any attorney representing the Plaintiff until February 27,

1975, at which time Attorney Mike Sebastian called Plaintiff's attorney

and asked for an appointment to discuss the case on February 28, 1975,

which appointment was readily granted and Petitioner's attorney met

with Attorney Sebastian on February 28, 1975. On that date, Attorney

Sebastian advised Plaintiff's attorney that he had had a $51,000.00

offer to settle the case and that he, Sebastian, believed that Adair

did not sustain damages in excess of that amount in view of his age at

the time of the injuries, his earnings at that time of approximately

$8,000.00 per year and the rate of disability reported to him by the

doctor. Upon inquiry, Petitioner's attorney learned from Plaintiff's

attorney that Plaintiff's case was set for trial in this Court the

e. •

N. ":••"! •

following week, March 3, 1975, and further learned that no depositions

had been taken by Plaintiff's attorney, such photographs as Plaintiff's

attorney had seen had been lost, no analysis of the explosive chemical

marketed by the Defendant as "PC-68" has been obtained, and that other

elements of proof believed by Petitioner's attorney to be necessary to

prove a prima facia case against the Defendant were missing, and in

view of the fact that Plaintiff will not settle his claim for the

$51,000.00 offered unless Petitioner accepts 1/3rd of its actual dollars

paid out in release of its subrogation rights, including recovery of

reasonable costs out of the excess of such settlement above, said

amount of $19,921.19, that trial of this cause is imminent, and that in

order for Petitioner's subrogation right to be adequately represented

in said cause it is necessary that Petitioner be permitted to intervene

as a party plaintiff so that Petitioner will have discovery proceedings

under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure available to it for the taking

of depositions and conducting such other discovery proceedings as

Petitioner deems necessary to adequately prepare Plaintiff's cause for

trial.

WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays that this petition for leave to

intervene be set for hearing and upon such hearing, this Court enter

its order permitting FIDELITY & CASUALTY COMPANY OF NEW YORK to intervene

as a party plaintiff and assert its vested rights of subrogation as set

forth in its petition for intervention herein attached, to which

reference is hereby made for all purposes and for such other and further

order as the Court deems proper.

C

FIDELITY & CASUALTY COMPANY OF NEW YORK,

By: t-

▪ 1)„.ift /(-Mn • Y. - Harvey 7e is, s attorney

LEWIS & McDONALD, Inc. 808 Merchants State Bank Bldg. 5217 Ross Avenue Dallas, Texas 75206 (214) 821-0113

NO. 74-4179-c

cPs7 Ecvn r:t!,

/ 1212

RICHARD ADAIR, Plaintiff

IN THE 68TH JUDICIAL

VS. DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR

ARROW CHEMICAL COMPANY, Defendant j DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

PETITION IN INTERVENTION

'TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

FIDELITY & CASUALTY COMPANY OF NEW YORK, an insurance company

authorized to do business in the State of Texas, and having an office

and agent for service within the State, with leave of this Court first

had and obtained, files this its Petition in Intervention as a party

Plaintiff in the above cause and represents:

1. Your intervenor, pursuant to provisions of its policy of

workmen's compensation insurance issued to M & M Equipment and Tool

Rental Company, the employer of the Plaintiff, Richard Adair, paid to

the Plaintiff, Richard Adair, directly, as workmen's compensation .benefits

the amount of $12,482.00 and paid medical expenses for and in his behalf

in the amount of $7,439.19. Final payment and settlement with the

Plaintiff, Adair, was consummated on or about August 20, 1973.

2. Intervenor shows that pursuant to Article 8307, Section 6a

of the Texas Workmen's Compensation Act, it acquired by such payment

and settlement with the Plaintiff, Adair, a vested right of subrogation

in Plaintiff's cause asserted against the Defendant herein to the extent

of such payments and in addition thereto, recovery out of any excess

of reasonable costs of enforcing such subrogated liability and for the

purpose of protecting and enforcing such vested rights this Petition in'

Intervention is necessary.

3. Your Intervenor has not been furnished as of the date of

filing this Petition in Intervention, current medical reports concerning

the Plaintiff's disability, if any, or information concerning Plaintiff's

lost wages in the past and potential loss of wages in the future, probable

future medical expenses, if any, in the absence of which your Intervenor

is unable to determine with accuracy the extent of Plaintiff's damages

and until such facts have been determined by your Intervenor it adopts

the pleadings of the Plaintiff except those inconsistent with pleadings

herein and represents:

Petition in Intervention - Page 1

(1) That the chemical marketed by the Defendant as

"PC-68" was an industrial product used to cover surfaces

near or used in connection with the installation of new

concrete in its liquid form, such product being sprayed on

or painted on surfaces such as brick walls, or parts of

equipment used in handling such concrete so that such liquid

concrete as came in contact with such surfaces that had been

so treated, would not "stick" and thereafter be more easily

removable than if such surfaces had not been treated with

the "PC-68" and that the very nature of such product and know-

ledge of its intended use by the Defendant, placed or should

have placed the Defendant on notice that such product would be

used and stored around industrial job sites and in storage

areas where industrial equipment was stored and repaired, and

that a reasonable and prudent manufacturer or vendor of such

product charged with such knowledge would label or mark the

container in which it was sold with large, distinctive markings

sufficiently large and distinctive to give warning to workmen

such as Plaintiff herein working in the area where such

chemical was stored with an electric welding torch that such con-

tained a highly inflammable and explosive product. This the

Defendant failed to do, in that the can purchased by Plaintiff's

employer and stored in his employer's storage area where repairs

to equipment were made, had no distinctive markings, labelings,

or other distinctive warning visable to Plaintiff and the other

workman who were working in close proximity to such container

with a welding torch that it contained a highly volitile, combustibl

and explosive product. As a result of such lack of warning, the

volitile, combustible and explosive product was ignited from the

heat or sparks from the welding torch and the unmarked container

exploded covering a large portion of Plaintiff's body with flaming

liquid resulting in the injuries complained of by Plaintiff herein.

Such failure on the part of the Defendant, being charged by law

with notice of the volitile, combustible and explosive nature of

its product and its intended use, constitutes negligence, and but

for such negligence on the part of the Defendant, the explosion

of the can in which the Defendant marketed the volitile, combustible

Petition In Intervention - Page 2

and explosive product giving rise to the injuries to the

Plaintiff complained of herein would not have occurred and

in view thereof, such negligence on the part of Defendant was

the proximate cause of the injuries and damages complained

of in this cause by Plaintiff.

WHEREFORE, your Intervenor prays that upon final hearing,

'Tlaintiff have Judgment against the Defendant in the amount of his

damages proved upon the trial of this cause, that your Intervenor

recover by way of subrogation under such Judgment, the amount of

$19,921.19 paid to or for the benefit of Plaintiff, and from the excess

judgment over and above such amount, if any, that your Intervenor re-

cover a reasonable cost of enforcing liability herein in an amount

to be determined by the Court, and such other and further relief to

which your Intervenor may show itself entitled at the trial of this

cause.

FIDELITY & CASUALTY COMPANY OF NEW YORK

LEWIS & McDONALD, Inc. Attorneys at Law 808 Merchants State Bank Bldg. 5217 Ross Avenue Dallas, Texas 75206 (214) 821-0113

Petition in Intervention - Page 3

NO. 74-4179-C

RICHARD ADAIR, Plaintiff X

IN THE 68TH JUDICIAL

VS. I DISTRICT COURT, IN AND FOR

ARROW CHEMICAL COMPANY, Defendant 1 DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

NOTICE OF DEPOSITION

TO: Mr. Michael H. Sebastian, Attorney at Law, 2005

Adolphus Tower, Dallas, Texas 75202, attorney for

Plaintiff, Richard Adair; and

Mr. Tony Dirksmeyer, Attorney at Law, 7700 John W.

Carpenter Freeway, Dallas, Texas.

You, and each of you are hereby given notice pursuant

to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure that the Deposition of the

Plaintiff, RICHARD ADAIR, will be taken in the office of J. Harvey

Lewis, Attorney for Intervenor, Fidelity & Casualty Company of New

York, at 808 Merchants Bank Bldg., Dallas, Texas (corner of Ross

Avenue and Henderson Street) on May 12, 1975, at 4:00 o'clock p.m.,

and demand is made on the Plaintiff Adair to personally appear at

such time, place and date.

You are invited to appear and cross-examine.

LEWIS & McDONALD, Inc.

By: rvey Lewis

808 Merchants Bank Bldg. 5217 Ross Avenue Dallas, Texas 75206 (214) 821-0113

C

LEWIS & MCDONALD, ATTORNEYS AT LAW

J. HARVEY LEWIS

0TH FLOOR MERCHANTS BANK BUILDING FRIO E. MeCONALO

DALLAS. TEXAS 73201 PHONE QUI). 821.0113

April 29, 1975 FILED

KAY 2 1#75 CLEBELL • am M

•P

Mr. Michael H. Sebastian Attorney at Law 2005 Adolphus Tower Dallas, Texas 75202

Mr. Tony Dirksmeyer Attorney at Law 7700 John W. Carpenter Freeway Dallas, Texas

Re: Adair vs. Arrow Chemical Company No. 74-4179-C

Gentlemen: "--

There is enclosed Notice for the taking of the deposition of Richard Adair which is self-explanatory. I had hoped and been advised that Mr. Adair would appear for an informal interview at a convenient time, but apparently no time is convenient to him.

If this deposition can be heard between now and the date set at 'a time convenient to each of you, I will endeavor to make myself available at your convenience.

Sincerely yours,

for IS E. ALD, Inc. JHL:eg Enclosure

cc: Clerk - 68th District Court Dallas County Government Center Dallas, Texas 75202

ey Che cal p.ration

en an 3

NO. 74-4179-0

RICHARD NEAL ADAIR § IN TEE DISTRICT COURT OF

VS. § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

ARROW CHEMICAL CORP. § 68TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

Upon motion.of the parties the above styled and numbered cause

wherein RICHARD NEAL ADAIR is Plaintiff and ARROW CHEMICAL CORPORA-

TION is Defendant is hereby dismissed with prejudice to the refiling

of same.

It is further ORDERED that all costs of court be taxed against

the Defendant, ARROW CHEMICAL CORPORATION, and that the Plaintiff,

RICHARD NEAL ADAIR, shall. have his execution if the court costs are

not timely paid.

RENDERED AND ENTERED this the 2ay of , 1975. e

C: